Detroit @ Boston foul tip that wasn't call...

[MD Longhorn]

I see your points.

[teccan9nja]

From how I understand a Foul Tip, not calling it really doesn't matter. It acts like a regular swinging strike. the ball remains live, runners can advance. Its just if its not caught that it matters and becomes a regular Foul Ball. So how does not calling a foul tip mean something?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by teccan9nja

From how I understand a Foul Tip, not calling it really doesn't matter. It acts like a regular swinging strike. the ball remains live, runners can advance. Its just if its not caught that it matters and becomes a regular Foul Ball. So how does not calling a foul tip mean something?

Because when it is called FOUL, everyone stops. If the umpire caused everyone to stop, and it turns out the play was actually live... how do you fix it?

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by teccan9nja

From how I understand a Foul Tip, not calling it really doesn't matter. It acts like a regular swinging strike. the ball remains live, runners can advance. Its just if its not caught that it matters and becomes a regular Foul Ball. So how does not calling a foul tip mean something?

It can also mean the difference between a win and a loss. Just imagine, bottom of 9th, R3 and R2, visitor ahead by one, 2 outs and something and 2 on the batter. The pitch is a foul tip that was not called a foul tip but a foul ball. The next pitch the batter hits a single. Either one or two score. You go from what should have been a win for the visitor to a possible loss. Most everything in baseball means something.

[Dakota]

It could work if it is treated like additional information from another umpire. In situations that can't be fixed, you live with the call, and in situations as in the Detroit / Boston game, you reverse the call, batter out, inning over. In my thoughts, stated earlier, this would be the crew chief's decision whether or not to use the additional information from the replay umpire.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dakota

it could work if it is treated like additional information from another umpire. In situations that can't be fixed, you live with the call, and in situations as in the detroit / boston game, you reverse the call, batter out, inning over. In my thoughts, stated earlier, this would be the crew chief's decision whether or not to use the additional information from the replay umpire.

+1

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Many of them are blatant only because of the extensive camera coverage already in place. The foul tip / foul ball call in question would have remained a dispute between Laird and Welke were it not for the multiple camera angles resulting in just the right view of the play. Leyland's ejection and post game rant would not have happened had he not had access to the replay.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then everyday would be Christmas. It is what it is...we live in an age of technology, and calls that would never be questioned 50 years ago are now brought into the light of day like never before. The fact is that we have these multiple camera angles, and managers have access to the replay immediately after the play happens. That's why they pay the MLB umpires the big bucks. While it may be unfair for the umpires to be subject to such scrutiny, that's the way it's going to be, so they have to be ready for it every time they make a call, unfortunately.

[voiceoflg]

As a broadcaster and a fan, I wouldn't have a problem with replay like it is now and for whether it is a catch or no catch (though I agree about making the outfield fences simpler to discern). I can see replay used in this particular instance. But limit replays to one challenge per manager. If a call is overturned, a manager gets one more, period. Also if the umpires decide ON THEIR OWN to go to replay, they should do so. If the umpires don't want to use replay and the managers don't/can't challenge, the managers should just live with it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

But limit replays to one challenge per manager. If a call is overturned, a manager gets one more, period. Also if the umpires decide ON THEIR OWN to go to replay, they should do so. If the umpires don't want to use replay and the managers don't/can't challenge, the managers should just live with it.

Again, the problem is not when to use replay, it's how to fix errors, especially placing runners. It's simply not possible to operationalize that in any clear and direct way. And that's a deal breaker for rules committees.

[DG]

I am not for replay beyond what exists now, however, it is possible and certain calls could be replayed without delay of game.

I can think of several bad calls that I expect the umpire who made it would like to have reviewed.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then everyday would be Christmas. It is what it is...we live in an age of technology, and calls that would never be questioned 50 years ago are now brought into the light of day like never before. The fact is that we have these multiple camera angles, and managers have access to the replay immediately after the play happens. That's why they pay the MLB umpires the big bucks. While it may be unfair for the umpires to be subject to such scrutiny, that's the way it's going to be, so they have to be ready for it every time they make a call, unfortunately.

Regardless, the BS that umpires are worse now than they were X years ago is simply that: BS.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Regardless, the BS that umpires are worse now than they were X years ago is simply that: BS.

Agreed, but the additional scrutiny is what leads to the call for replay, and that, as much as I don't like it, is an irresistible force that will result in expansion of replay eventually.

Following the NFL model, where the crew chief goes "under the hood" to review the play and make a decision is where it all goes off the rails with respect to baseball, IMO. All of the issues raised about the difficulty of reversing a call in baseball are legitimate.

It just seems to me that if the replay umpire is treated like any other member of the crew (with the exception that he has no primary call responsibility, but is just another pair of eyes on the play), who then provides the crew chief with his additional information and allows the on-field crew to decide what, if anything, to do with this information, fits baseball to a "T". It adds no additional delay, has no one going "under the hood", creates no new conundrum over placing runners over what already exists, and would allow many calls to be "fixed".

Would it satisfy all fans, managers, players? Would it fix all "bad" calls? Of course not. But it would be workable, IMO.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Regardless, the BS that umpires are worse now than they were X years ago is simply that: BS.

ITA. The umpires of the past kicked more than their fair share of calls.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

Did I miss someone asking why the heck the 1B umpire called a foul ball here?

I would rather the HPU look at the ball and see no dirt than have this happen. (not that that is a good policy, either).

In viewing the replay, you can see PU immediately look to U1 for help before making any call. PU got screened.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

In viewing the replay, you can see PU immediately look to U1 for help before making any call. PU got screened.

Don't most umpires get screened on plays like this? You almost always have to get some help or some kind of confirmation from the base umpires in these situations. Or you hope the players act appropriately to help you make the call.

Peace